Mohan Bansilal Bhutada, Beed V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(4), Beed, Beed

ITA 591/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves five appeals by Mohan Bansilal Bhutada against orders passed by the CIT(A) in the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to significant delays in filing, totaling from 287 to 1299 days. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delays, which included the assessee's lack of familiarity with income tax provisions and personal hardships. On the merits, the assessee contested additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits and property purchases, claiming these were from legitimate agricultural income. The Tribunal decided to condone the delays and remand the cases back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124197 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Source of fund; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. /ITA Nos.587, 590, 591, 594 & 596/PUN/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Mohan Bansilal Bhutada, Gajanan Nagar, Kolher Road, Gevrai, Dist. Beed – 431 127 Maharashtra PAN : ANAPB1342B Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Beed Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: These five appeals by the assessee arise out of the separate orders passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi on 21-03-2023 u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the A.Y. 2011-12 are that a Tax Evasion Petition was filed against the assessee. It was gathered by the Department that the assessee deposited cash into Savings Bank account in State Bank of Hyderabad, Gevrai branch. Notice u/s.148 Assessee by Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue by Smt. Mugdha Sardeshponde Date of hearing 14-06-2023 Date of pronouncement 14-06-2023 Mohan Bansilal Bhutada 2 was issued after recording the reasons, which was duly served. The assessee did not file any return in response to the notice. A subsequent notice was served personally, pursuant to which the assessee filed adjournment petition. Thereafter, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.24,50,000/- on 02-02-2011 in his savings bank account maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad, Gevrai branch. This amount was added by the AO. Apart from that, the AO also observed that the assessee purchased properties on five dates during the year, all totalling to Rs.11,91,000/-. In the absence of any participation by the assessee, the AO added that amount as well. This led to the completion of assessment at a total income of Rs.36,41,000/- (Rs.24,50,000 deposited in cash and cost of Rs.11,91,000 towards purchase of property). The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was time barred by 1232 days. A condonation petition was furnished giving reasons for the delay. The ld. CIT(A) did not get impressed and dismissed the appeal at the threshold by not condoning the delay. Against the said order, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 3. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee is an Agriculturist, who Mohan Bansilal Bhutada 3 never had any occasion to file any income tax return in the past. The assessee furnished an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) in support of condonation of delay, a copy of which has been placed on record. As per this affidavit, the assessee being a farmer, was oblivious of the income-tax provisions. Further, the affidavit records that there was death in the family and the assessee, being, head of the family, was busy in carrying out his responsibilities. These facts indicate that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal on time before the ld. CIT(A). 4. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.24.50 lakh representing deposits in the bank account were receipts from Gram Panchayat and the AO made the addition without any verification. As regards the property purchased, the assessee submitted that these were agricultural lands purchased from known sources of income. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay. As such, the delay is condoned. The impugned order is, therefore, overturned and the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for disposal on merits as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Mohan Bansilal Bhutada 4 6. The facts and circumstances of the other appeals are mutatis mutandis similar. ITA No.594/PUN/2023 relating to the A.Y. 2010- 11 is the appeal filed belatedly by 1297 days before the ld. CIT(A). Similarly, ITA No.590/PUN/2023 is an appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 which was filed with delay of 1299 days. ITA Nos. 591 and 596/PUN/2023 are the appeals for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 which were filed belatedly by 287 days each. All these appeals came to be dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of delay. The facts and circumstances and the reasons for the delay in presenting these appeals are similar to those in respect of ITA No.587/PUN/2023, which has been discussed hereinabove. Following the view taken for the A.Y. 2011-12 in such appeal, I condone the delay in presenting the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The impugned orders are, therefore, set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for disposal of the appeals on merit as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 th June, 2023. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 14 th June, 2023 सतीश Mohan Bansilal Bhutada 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr.CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 14-06-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 14-06-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *